Scents + ethics/morality

Well as long as many of us are sitting around till springtime only wishing
we could get out on the water, I thought I'd try this perhaps controversial
question out on you guy/gals.

I'm not sure if scents work or not. I tend to think they do, but perhaps
that's just a psychological crutch I use (which is ok if it works . . . I
think). But I get the drift that many . . . perhaps even most members of
ROFB agree they do not work eg. see recent thread information with Joe
H's response. I know there's been an ongoing debate and am not sure of the
numbers, but let's assume most members agree that they do not work. . . .
That being the case,

I've seen just about every major tournament competitor (BASS, FLW etc)
endorse scents at one time or another. Do group members see any issues of an
ethical or moral nature in the peddeling of those products by the pros (who
must have a good idea if they legitimately work or not) if they don't really
work.?

I recall some time ago asking a similar question about endorsements of
other products by pros (eg. Hank Parker's long time Hummingbird is God's
greatest gift to fishermen. . . now with someone else). And everyone seemed
to have no problem with it because "it's how they make their living." I did
and do have a problem with it. I very much enjoy Bill Dance as a fisherman
( though he fishes nothing but stocked ponds any longer) and a person. I
understand he's a golden human being, but everyone has to know Bill would
endorse tying a cow on the end of his line if someone paid him a buck to say
it.

I guess the core question is, does anyone else feel like it's
inappropriate for people to endorse "any product" recieve endorsement monies
just because it's a sponsor and the mouthpiece is a name competitor? Just
wondering how rest of you feel. ok...shoot.
--
God Bless America

Josh The Bad Bear